OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper averted a showdown with international allies and his biggest domestic political opponent Tuesday by promising that Canadian Forces trainers in Afghanistan will not be drawn into fighting.

Harper told Parliament that Canada's combat mission will end next year as scheduled, as his government finally confirmed that the country will keep up to 950 soldiers and support staff in Afghanistan on a training mission until March 2014.

The long-anticipated announcement won praise from NATO's leadership in Brussels, even though some allies exerted pressure to keep Canadian troops on the front lines of fighting in Kandahar beyond the July 2011 withdrawal date.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he "warmly" welcomed Harper's decision to deploy "a substantial number of trainers" to Afghanistan, and acknowledged the "real difference" Canadian troops have made in the war-torn country, "often at a high cost."

PERSONAL OPINION: I was hoping this would happen without much resistance from the opposition parties and that is exactly what happened. Ergo, me glad.

scoopy_loopy

17-11-10, 05:41

Personally, I'm war weary - I don't know why Australia needs so many over there. We're a tiny nation, what does Afghanistan ever do for us?

But I guess Julia's down on her knees with Obama throat deep... anything to remain under that fabulous nuclear umbrella!

Catapharact

17-11-10, 12:47

Personally, I'm war weary - I don't know why Australia needs so many over there. We're a tiny nation, what does Afghanistan ever do for us?

That pretty much what Australia's sentiment was about WW2 and Japan... Until they were attacked by the Japanese Imperial Army and Airforce. Keep in mind that Osama Bin Laden has declared Australia a target of Al-Quakers and the military regiments in Afghanistan are stretched too thin. Its hard work trying to secure and area when you have potentially corrupt individuals on both sides of the fence so to speak (I am taking about the Afghan national army.) So NATO needs all the help they can get.

Love2Raid

17-11-10, 20:34

Good news, their help is much needed. :tmb:

robm_2007

18-11-10, 00:16

But I guess Julia's down on her knees with Obama throat deep... anything to remain under that fabulous nuclear umbrella!

that sounds sexual for some reason.

anyways, its nice to hear that Canada is continuing to offer their support in the fight against the Dark Side and Darth Osama.

jjbennett

18-11-10, 00:38

that sounds sexual for some reason.

anyways, its nice to hear that Canada is continuing to offer their support in the fight against the Dark Side and Darth Osama.
Oh dear *facepalm*

robm_2007

18-11-10, 00:39

Oh dear *facepalm*

are you disagreeing?

jjbennett

18-11-10, 00:47

*sigh*

It was such a blatantly sexual euphemism i was just expressing my disappointment you didn't get it mate.

robm_2007

18-11-10, 02:15

*sigh*

It was such a blatantly sexual euphemism i was just expressing my disappointment you didn't get it mate.

im disappointed you didnt get my sarcasm :eek:

jjbennett

18-11-10, 02:19

It never conveys well online does it. I assumed by the full stop and no smiley you were being serious :pi:

Bongo Fury

18-11-10, 02:28

Well,if left up to me, i'd prefer if we left completely and just left Afghanistan to drown in it's medieval filth . That said: these kinds of political moves are all about quid pro quo – no doubt for something in return from Washington. Since we are not going to be privy to what the real deal is – it's hard to judge the decision one way or the other.

scremanie

18-11-10, 02:28

What is this I don't even..... :pi:

robm_2007

18-11-10, 02:33

It never conveys well online does it. I assumed by the full stop and no smiley you were being serious :pi:

that the best kind or sarcasm if when they think youre being serious.
-----------
anyways, this is shocking new that Julia Gillard and Barack Obama are having an affair.
------------
i dont really agree with the troops just withdrawing completley. if the news serves any service of truth, they seem to be making progress there. if we all left, then the mercy of whatever innocents civilians that live in Afghanistan would be with Al-Qaeda (or the Taliban, i forget which occpies Afg. and which is in Pakistan), and neither of them seem to be too nice to troops, let alone bystanders.

scoopy_loopy

18-11-10, 02:42

That pretty much what Australia's sentiment was about WW2 and Japan... Until they were attacked by the Japanese Imperial Army and Airforce. Keep in mind that Osama Bin Laden has declared Australia a target of Al-Quakers and the military regiments in Afghanistan are stretched too thin. Its hard work trying to secure and area when you have potentially corrupt individuals on both sides of the fence so to speak (I am taking about the Afghan national army.) So NATO needs all the help they can get.

Pretty sure Australia was quite patriotic when it came to battling Japan, ACTUALLY, considering the direct threat and the fact that there wasn't an able man left in Australia that wasn't involved in the war. If anything, weariness came from the length of the war, the tax on the resources and the way the troops and the Nation were mistreated by the British.

Also, of course the government has Australia listed as "under threat", if they hadn't, even more people would be standing up against involvement in the war. But let me just say, if Osama ever attacks Australia, I will be VERY surprised. What the eff are they going to do? Blow up the Opera House? Boo hoo. America won't give a crap, therefore, it wouldn't be worth it.

robm_2007

18-11-10, 03:04

the Aussies would also see an attack coming, conisdering the amount of water surrounding them; unless they come from Indonesia/Papau New Giunea area; but i doubt Al Qaeda has forces hidden there.

scoopy_loopy

18-11-10, 03:08

the Aussies would also see an attack coming, conisdering the amount of water surrounding them; unless they come from Indonesia/Papau New Giunea area; but i doubt Al Qaeda has forces hidden there.

What do you mean one could see an attack coming?? Did anyone see 9/11 coming?! :vlol:

robm_2007

18-11-10, 03:12

What do you mean one could see an attack coming?? Did anyone see 9/11 coming?! :vlol:

9/11 is NOT FUNNY :mad: or is it?
----------
they could see the planes, trains, or automobiles coming from far away, since 3/4 of Australia is surrounded by empty stretches of water.

Mad Tony

18-11-10, 12:29

What the eff are they going to do? Blow up the Opera House? Boo hoo. America won't give a crap, therefore, it wouldn't be worth it.Let's not kid ourselves, most people would care if Australia was attacked by terrorists.

Cochrane

18-11-10, 12:42

9/11 is NOT FUNNY :mad: or is it?
----------
they could see the planes, trains, or automobiles coming from far away, since 3/4 of Australia is surrounded by empty stretches of water.

The joke was in bad taste, no doubt, but I think he is right when saying that terrain is irrelevant. Al Quaida will not and has not used tanks, war planes, battleships and the like. The attacks came from normal commercial airliners that were in the area, or in London and Madrid from public transportation. You don't see terrorists coming like that. What you need are intelligence services that can tell you who not to let into the country at the regular airports. Terrain is pretty much irrelevant.

robm_2007

18-11-10, 16:45

The joke was in bad taste, no doubt, but I think he is right when saying that terrain is irrelevant. Al Quaida will not and has not used tanks, war planes, battleships and the like. The attacks came from normal commercial airliners that were in the area, or in London and Madrid from public transportation. You don't see terrorists coming like that. What you need are intelligence services that can tell you who not to let into the country at the regular airports. Terrain is pretty much irrelevant.

when scoopy_loopy outed the affair between Julia Gillard adn Obama mentioned the nuclear umbrella, which i took as a nuclear attacks, ie WMDs adn such.

a 9/11-esque attack would be more likely to not see coming. i was more thing along the lines of a full-scale invasive attack :pi:

i just got carried away with the idea of al Qaeda attacking Australia.

Ward Dragon

18-11-10, 16:55

The nuclear umbrella refers to protection from the United States, basically that if Australia is attacked the US will defend them so Australia doesn't need to have as many weapons itself because they can count on the US's arsenal for defense.

Squibbly

18-11-10, 17:17

This is a good diplomatic middle, I think.

It's good that we're getting rid of most of our forces from there, but leaving some trainers so that allies know we still support what they're doing.
This way, our BFF, USA, doesn't get angry with us, but the Canadian people aren't as enraged wondering why we're still there killing ourselves.

scoopy_loopy

19-11-10, 02:14

The nuclear umbrella refers to protection from the United States, basically that if Australia is attacked the US will defend them so Australia doesn't need to have as many weapons itself because they can count on the US's arsenal for defense.

Thank you!

Catapharact

19-11-10, 14:31

Pretty sure Australia was quite patriotic when it came to battling Japan, ACTUALLY, considering the direct threat and the fact that there wasn't an able man left in Australia that wasn't involved in the war.

Not at all. Infact Australia didn't have much of an interest in the Pacific war until the 1942 attacks on Darwin and Broome. They were more concerned about the war in Europe and Germany. Even after those air raids, Australia still didn't even choose to solidify its coastal defenses until they were attacked once again on May 31 1942 when a light Japanese Submarine shelled Sydney.

What the eff are they going to do? Blow up the Opera House? Boo hoo. America won't give a crap, therefore, it wouldn't be worth it.

Wow... Just wow. Respectfully speaking... I don't think I can dignify this remark with answer.

EDIT:

It's good that we're getting rid of most of our forces from there, but leaving some trainers so that allies know we still support what they're doing.
This way, our BFF, USA, doesn't get angry with us, but the Canadian people aren't as enraged wondering why we're still there killing ourselves.

Canadian Troops have a proud heritage of being more than just warfighters. Just take a look at our peacekeeping track record; We have always been able to win hearts over and turn things around in war torn nations around the world. Afghanistan shouldn't be any different.

This is something that Canadian people need to keep in mind.

scoopy_loopy

19-11-10, 15:21

Not at all. Infact Australia didn't have much of an interest in the Pacific war until the 1942 attacks on Darwin and Broome. They were more concerned about the war in Europe and Germany. Even after those air raids, Australia still didn't even choose to solidify its coastal defenses until they were attacked once again on May 31 1942 when a light Japanese Submarine shelled Sydney.

Due to the emphasis placed on cooperation with Britain, relatively few Australian military units were stationed in Australia and the Asia-Pacific Region after 1940. Measures were taken to improve Australia's defences as war with Japan loomed in 1941, but these proved inadequate. In December 1941 the Australian Army in the Pacific comprised the 8th Division, most of which was stationed in Malaya, and eight partially trained and equipped divisions in Australia, including the 1st Armoured Division. The RAAF was equipped with 373 aircraft, most of which were obsolete trainers, and the RAN had three cruisers and two destroyers in Australian waters.[69]

Followed by:

In 1942 the Australian military was reinforced by units recalled from the Middle East and an expansion of the CMF and RAAF. United States Military units also arrived in Australia in great numbers before being deployed to New Guinea. The Allies moved onto the offensive in late 1942, with the pace of advance accelerating in 1943. From 1944 the Australian military was mainly relegated to subsidiary roles, but continued to conduct large-scale operations until the end of the war.[70]

I know my facts Scoops ;). You need to learn up on your own history.

scoopy_loopy

19-11-10, 15:29

Cat, what the ****. First you say Australia was disinterested in the war, until we were attacked by Japan. Now you're replying with own links, which state Australia was in fact heavily involved in the war from the get-go. Which has been my point all along?

Catapharact

19-11-10, 15:34

Cat, what the ****. First you say Australia was disinterested in the war, until we were attacked by Japan. Now you're replying with own links, which state Australia was in fact heavily involved in the war from the get-go. Which has been my point all along?

Read what I wrote Scoopy.

I said Australia was disinterested in the PACIFIC war! They weren't whole heartedly involved in fighting Japan (not Germany... JAPAN!) and were focusing more on light infantry support and even more dismal naval and airforce involvement. Heck according to your own links (and what I said earlier,) Australian coastal defenses were just plain sad. Its only AFTER the 1942 attacks that Australia stepped up its campaign in the Pacific.